Why Carl Sagan rejected atheism

[Mothonis]

The term that carl sagan is rejecting is the old definition of the word, we as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate that old definetion and redefine to something that better describes what the word refers too. Why is that wrong, or so difficult to understand.

I don't think this is true for a number of reasons.

First of all, it's obvious that there has not been a whole, conscious coming together of nonbelievers to decide on definitions. There has been no turning point, no meeting, no nothing.

So to claim "we have decided" appears to be a false depiction of consensus that does not correspond to historical facts or specifics.

I hate to say this, but it sounds very much like atheists like to create their own narrative- to shape the story to suit their point. In this case, it sounds like a rewriting of history and misrepresentation of reality in order to shore up defense of this definition.

I don't think you are doing this on purpose. I don't want to say you are intellectually dishonest because I don't know your motives.

But surely if you look at your own views carefully you will notice you are adding to the facts certain elements that are not supported by any evidence, supporting my view that this definition of atheism was engineered surreptitiously.

The coward ounce again ignores Esquilax post.second not everyone believes things without evidence,just because you can't comprehend that doesn't mean others don't do it.